Skip to main content

tv   Representative William Hungate Opening Statement  CSPAN  August 5, 2014 10:48pm-11:02pm EDT

10:48 pm
instances although i deplore any elements that we see in the tapes of moral knowledge or feeling in some instances, but i believe that the president of the united states have tried to come to the best conclusions that he could for our people. i don't stand for any coverup. i think that coverup is wrong. the men that could be convicted should be kwibted. i don't think we should ever keep things from our people. it's perhaps all of us have said the most important and most tough moment of our lives as we go over all of these matters and i listen to the arguments on both sides. but i have heard these tapes and i have watched to see what's happened later and in so many instances in listening it to the tapes, you're dead sure something is going to happen and
10:49 pm
exactly the opposite takes place. the president orders findings to fire the man that's in charge of the i.t.t. case. what happened? two or three days later, appeal is taken as the vegs will be fired, they go forward and a decision is made by agreement with i.t.t. that's absolutely contrary to the interest of i.t.t. and goes absolutely in the other direction. thank you for hearing my point of view. i hope and pray that god guides this committee to make the right decision for our nation's future. >> i thank the chairman and i thank my colleague from illinois for his discussion and i hope that history will record you received the clearest explanation of this problem on the time of the gentleman from missouri. mr. chairman, it has been my privilege to serve on this committee for ten years and
10:50 pm
never have i been prouder of this committee and the privilege of serving on it than i am during this period of its most supreme testing. for weeks, even months, we have has come for decisions. further delay is unjustive eyable. the time consuming task of impeachment must go forward. should richard m. nixon be found guilty of obstruction of justice. yes. should nixon be found guilty of abusing the powers of his office yes and guilty of contempt and defiance of the courts. yes. we hear a great deal today about the presumably grim consequences of impeachment. an endless public trial. people divided.
10:51 pm
the government paralyzed. the nation disgraced. suppose the house should decide not to impeach. it should have consequences too. refusal to impeach would be a decision as momentous as impeachment himself. it would alter the historic relationship of presidential power in the constitution system of accountability for using that power. our mess age to posterity, failure to impeach would be a vindication of a new theory of presidential nonaccountability. many would shrink from this trying constitutional responsibility. shrinking from impeachment
10:52 pm
derives from the difficulty of visualizing oe februariess. perhaps it is more easily conceived if put in more simple terms. number one, suppose your mayor approved a plan by which the chief of police of your city could illegally map your phone, open your mail, burglarize your office or apartment. suppose your mayor tapped the local reporter covering city hall, directed the fbi to investigate a newscaster. suppose your mayor withhold knowledge of a burglary trying a case with which that knowledge was important or secretly taped conversations in his office between city hall and public officials like yourself. when a confirmed court order
10:53 pm
required him to turn over nine of these tapes. he disobeyed. suppose your mayor tripled his wealth while serving as mayor in your city. suppose he paid practically no income tax for several years. suppose your mayor certiused up fun funds. suppose your mayor selected and supervised distrusted top officials of his administration. 10 men and women who pled guilty. should we have a lower standard
10:54 pm
of action for the president. the founding fathers wisely made impeachment a constitutional remedy. they did not want to make it easy to get rid of presidents but they were determined to make it possible. if we wish to restore the accountability of presidents, the means and nixons are at home accept once every four years we usher in a imperial policy, we transform the balance and character of constitutional order. impeachment may have grievance consequences, refusal to impeach will have disastrous consequences. the transcripts have diminished him imtooth that of an amoral man who withheld the shocking
10:55 pm
truth about the mess he and his administration were in. he shows a lack of concern for reality and principal which make the white house a supposed exposure. he is suspicious of his staff. his loyalty is minimal. his greatest concern is to create a record that will safe himself and his administration. the high dedication that americans have a right from a president is missing from the transcript. i do not know how one of sound mind can read the transcript as think that mr. mixon upheld the principals. the question is not of that of democrat or republican or conspiracy to get the president,
10:56 pm
in the words of a presidential defender, mr. nixon took a principal role of a disgusting performance. this is a matter of right and wrong. tra perhaps this old mys issouri. constitutional and parliamentary shows an official may be removed losing his ability to governor activity. the distinguished gentleman mentioned james madison. on may 19th, 1789, in the debates mr. madison said, quote, i think it absolutely necessary that the president have the power of removing his subored
10:57 pm
naets from office. it will make him in a peculiar manner subject to their conduct and subject him to impeachment himself. if he nuts chooses to check you components. that risk must be accepted. the ultimate arbiter is the people. public reaction today is clearly revoltion. the evidence against mr. nixon is in his own words made public at his own direction. there can no longer be a charge he was railroaded out of office by vengeful democrat and a hostile press. the fundamental questions have
10:58 pm
been answered. let's assume you were president of the united states and possessed normal standards of honesty. one of your assist abts comants do you remember the burglary at the water gate we're spending your money on the people caught in the burglary to pay their legal fees. what would you say or do? would you examine at all of their legal fees as mr. mixon would say they are perfectly legal or would you think that that money was used to re-elect the president of the united states. nobody in this going to use it to support burglars. you know a man who is not a crook is not necessarily an honest man. we do not have too to find out
10:59 pm
that the money was being used to support burglars. would i have said that would be perfectly legal and kept quiet for 40 days. ask yourself whether you think richard nixon is worthy to occupy the highest office and the gift of the people. it's their office of the it's hard not to appear silly or disconest when you have to speak about the subject from opposing points of view. so with president nixon and water gate, it's evidence for a man trying to use a government to insist one year gautergait is enough. when administrator and suspect are one, it's hard to say anything without the appearance of self serving dishonesty. as a result mr. nixon is forever saying contradictory things for instance he's cooperating fully with the special prosecutor even though he's denying tapes that
11:00 pm
the prosecutor needs. there's a way out. he can plead the fachbifth amendment. add to this that he is innocent until proven guilty you have the best strategy he might have. you know the president spoke about law and order in 1968 saying it's time to have a new attorney general in the united states. he says mr. nixon says i pledge you that our general attorney will launch a war against organized crime in this nation. respect from law can come only from people who take it into their hearts and minds and not into their hands. i believe in a system necessity which the appropriate cabinet officer gets credit for what
11:01 pm
goes right. i believe any 70 of government providing besful change. mr. mix nixon said the only way attack crime in america is the way crime attacks our people without pity. >> mr. nixon said? final one, you tell you what happens when you go to a police state. you can't talk why your bedroom. you ha hear about going out and talk in front of the garden. you can't even talk in front of a shrub. i'm simply saying there are police states and we don't want that to happen in america. adds long as i'm in office make sure no one engages in that


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on